The "Face of Terror"?
December 12, 2001 12:07 PM   Subscribe

The "Face of Terror"? W.Y.S.I.W.Y.G. I haven't seen propaganda like this before. An interesting take on Arafat. Take a closer look.
posted by MattS (17 comments total)
lets see one of sharon
posted by Zebulun at 12:33 PM on December 12, 2001

Gosh, did Sharon kill some people a few hours ago by blowing up a bus and then shooting at the rescue vehicles that were taking care of the 30 wounded?
Isn't it odd that the terror groups have stepped up their efforts from the moment that the American rep came to the area to get both sides talking...must be coincidence.
posted by Postroad at 12:42 PM on December 12, 2001

Postroad, no, but Sharon retaliated with bombing a Palestinian security building. Sharon is just as evil, except he has a military and the US media behind him. The Palestinians are fighting with rocks, the Israelis with jets and tanks.

Simple solution: Israel, get the fuck out of Palestine, it wasn't yours to begin with. Sure, it's going to hurt, but what hurts more, ripping off a band-aid quickly, or slowly peeling it off?
posted by remlapm at 12:53 PM on December 12, 2001

Postroad: "did Sharon kill some people a few hours ago by blowing up a bus ... ?"

Irv Rubin, chairman of Jewish Defense League and Earl Krugel were taken into custody this morning for "what law enforcement sources alleged was an aborted plot to blow up Arab-American institutions in the Los Angeles area, including a prominent mosque."
posted by tamim at 12:55 PM on December 12, 2001

/begin_offtopic (?)

While this kind of image is easy to make with the right tool, I never really tried it myself.
Then again, I think this comment of mine would be more suitable on Fark. Can't wait to see them use this "new technique" =)

posted by XiBe at 1:06 PM on December 12, 2001

i didnt mean to start a flame war. im not that kind of troll. however, i was wondering if someone could come up with one of sharon using shots of palestine buildings being torn down, pictures of destroyed palestinian police buildings, shots of israeli police storm trooping into mosques, shooting kids throwing rocks. shots like these:

photos of the massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps Sharon has been accused of being responsible for
this photo from this article
one could use this nice photo of sharon when he was arrested for war crimes

i used to have a link to a collection of photos on a site that claimed to be the official homepage of the Israeli Army rangers or something (that was a subtle satire that had loads of Israeli Army abuse).
posted by Zebulun at 1:12 PM on December 12, 2001

tamim, the JDL is not connected to Israel-- they are considered fanatics there. The political party based on its founder, Meir Kahane, is illegal in the Israeli Knesset (although it enjoys popularity among the country's extreme right wing and settlers). There are more than enough examples of state terrorism that would suffice, no need to bring those loonies into it.

What's more interesting is how it will play out on the news. Can you imagine the uproar/outrage/breaking news if 2 Arab activists were arrested with a serious bomb plot to blow up a synagogue and a Jewish Congressman? I guess we'll see...
posted by cell divide at 1:17 PM on December 12, 2001 we go again.
posted by aacheson at 1:43 PM on December 12, 2001

Um yeah, Israelis don't commit acts of terrorism against Palestinians. Sure.
posted by donkeyschlong at 2:29 PM on December 12, 2001

This is reminiscent of Marcus Harvey's portrait of Myra Hindley made up of child handprints from the Sensation exhibition. Could the Arafat picture be viewed as a work of art?
posted by Gwai at 2:40 PM on December 12, 2001

Let me be clear. I think Israel ought to get out of occupied lands. But UN resolutions said "when there is a just and lasting peace." No country gives up land taken in war unless (21) for strategic reasons (not worth holding), (1) a peace agreement has been signed.
Sharon is in power because Arafat made it clear that he would be. Araat walked away from peace talks and that ended Barak's time in office.
The indictment of Sharon always goes back to the days of Lebanon, where he stood by when non-Israeli forces did atrocities. The charge: he did not prevent it. True.
But that was some time ago. He is retaliating for every bomb that goes off by suicide folks.
Now what does the post mean that trhe Palestinians are using only stones? Today they shot mortars into a place; they are always depicted with automatic weapons, etc. so let us at least admit to what is going on.
Sharon said he would go to the peace table when there were a number of days of non-violence. The other side has not yet tried him out.
We gave guys in mountain hangout 24 hours to consider giving up. We did not fire. They did not give up. We went back to bombing. Is it so difficult to cease for a week?
Note: Arafat said last week he would take care of the terror groups. Today he announced that he would close down their offices. What was he then doing during the week when he said he would stop them?
posted by Postroad at 3:02 PM on December 12, 2001

I've been seeing a lot of this technique, especially since the Truman Show poster. It seems Robert Silvers pioneered the art, called PhotoCollage or PhotoMosaic. Now the technique is commercially available.
posted by modofo at 3:51 PM on December 12, 2001

...somethng left out: as for those crazies (Jewish Defense League guys, the two who wanted to blow up the mosque), cut off their heads--crazies are nutters, no matter what side, religion, cause they believe they represent.
posted by Postroad at 4:17 PM on December 12, 2001

I think they need to chose the greatest champions from each side, put them in an dome filled with many hi-tech weapons of death and let them decide the future of their people.

Combat is go!
posted by fuq at 5:02 PM on December 12, 2001

remlapm: The fact is that before the partition in 1947 the "Palestinians" didn't have a homeland any more than the Jews did. The Ottomans ruled the area for hundreds of years before the British mandate after the First World War. The U.N. partition gave them recognition and self-determination as a group for the first time in history. When the U.N. sanctioned a Zionist state, they sanctioned a Palestinian one too. Had the Palestinians and the Arab League not turned down the deal and attacked Israel instead, the Palestinians actually would have been in possession of a homeland for the past 53 years. As it is, the Arab League nations lost the ensuing war and their mission of denying Israel’s existence by war. Most of the
territory of the U.N.-created Palestinian state fell into the hands of Jordan and Egypt and was partially lost to Israel in later wars. Besides Jordan, no Arab states ever accepted the Palestinians into their own country. They are used and exploited by their own Arab brothers.

Israel is a sovereign country with a settled population and a democratically elected government.

But if you are so fuck'n concerned, work first on getting Texas back to the Mexicans.
posted by semmi at 8:06 PM on December 12, 2001

So to summarize, Semmi-- the Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years, had no problem living under the Ottomans, were a peaceful people, and then were offered 45% of the land which they owned 95% of, while foreigners emigrating from Europe were offered 55%, including most of the coastline and water. Do you really think anyone would accept that deal? Don't try to spin the creation of Israel as a lost opportunity for the Palestinians-- they were perfectly happy for hundreds of years until their land was stolen from them by a body they had no control over.

It was a land grab, plan and simple. Don't try to compare it to Texas, don't whitwash the fact that the UN never said Israel can forcibly remove Palestinians from their villages, don't pretend Israel is blameless.

You are correct though, the fact is that Israel is a settled population with a democratic government, and it's not going anywhere. But please don't make it sound like the problem is Arab states not accepting millions of refugees. The problem is that people were made refugees at all.
posted by chaz at 10:24 PM on December 12, 2001

before the partition in 1947 the "Palestinians" didn't have a homeland

Yeah, semmi, I guess working the same orchards your great-grandfather's great-grandfather's family worked, doesn't amount to "having a homeland." Violently expelling the descendants of the last millennium's inhabitants of the land, that's your "democratic" American-expat-with-a-big-box-of-ammunition's valid idea of "having a homeland."

No one in this thread has yet made the rejoinder to Postroad--I guess it is just too obvious--that Yasir Arafat did not in fact direct these latest attacks. The headlines going across America right now are pretty shallow; most of them come close to implying that the conflict consists of two unified sides, and the Palestinian "side" has just perpetrated this. Not so. But really, what are Palestinians who have invested their real hopes in the peace process to feel under Sharon's power? Anyway, as long as Palestinian civilians continue to die violent deaths at enemy hands at a faster clip than Israeli civilians, it will be pretty hard to persuade Palestinians that militants carrying out attacks on the settlers who have colonized the West Bank and Gaza Strip are terrorists.

Sharon's F-16's sure are articulating anti-U.S. "propaganda" better than anything else lately.
posted by Zurishaddai at 2:40 AM on December 13, 2001

« Older Osama bin Gone to Pakistan 10 days now   |   Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments